The complexity of the BEVI is a double-edged sword - you get a rich"whole person" approach and lots of different windows into the group profiles along with the challenge of making sense of all that complexity. One thing that really stands out to me about the BEVI among a sea of other commonly used instruments is its low face validity - we have too many instruments that simply ask people about their self-perceptions. In contrast, using sophisticated psychometrics, the BEVI taps into structures of the self that may not even be conscious.

There are four things I like about the BEVI, as an institutional researcher:  (1) the report that goes to the user is supportive and transparent enough that she/he/they does not need to sit down with a trained facilitator; (2) you can get an institutional site license for it; (3) it's a " full spectrum" too that measures more than just intercultural competence (critical thinking, grit, ecological resonance; self-awareness; etc.); (4) it does decile-based analysis of the demographics and groups for each competency it measures.  In other words, it is an inclusive and sophisticated assessment tool that seamlessly facilitates equitable institutional research.  On the other hand, as opposed to some other tools in this Hub, it's a long survey instrument ...   Nothing is perfect! 

I like having the BEVI as a tool in my assessment tool box and think it's an excellent tool in some instances. At the same time, I am discerning about where I recommend it's use. For large groups, pulling out the salient data to highlight group characteristics and intragroup differences can do a lot for generating reflection for individual learners, discussion for a group of learners, and programmatic considerations for instructors, facilitators, and administrators. For example, in a 500+ Mechanical Engineering course, I found that gender differences were significant on almost all scales, and these results would be worth processing at all those levels. That said, I have found that instructors who are already suspicious of psychometric tools are particularly dismissive of the BEVI. They find that gender binaries built into the questions and in the data collected do not represent their non-binary worldviews, and they find the statements on religion to be narrowly representative. The narrative feedback can also feel patronizing, generic, and/or outdated. This was also my reaction to some degree when I took the survey the first time. On the positive side, some of those concerns should be alleviated with the new version that will soon be released (I write in December 2020). I hope to find it more widely applicable then.